A few questions for PWKH (3 Viewers)

[wingy]

How about this one?

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/fans-poll-shows-huge-chunk-6930683

That epically huge poll of how many.... 397 people?

My personal favourite is the one from the beginning of the season where he publicly humiliates 2 twitter users for saying they would go to Sixfields. Putting their Twitter handles on and everything. You can imagine the dogs abuse they will have got as a result. (sadly I can't find the link)

He's correct TBF ,the clubs own sample produced from a similar sized sample gave the same outcome ,except the reality was even greater .They suppressed that data until after they had the OK from the FL by the way.

 

---

[Ian1779]

Context is very clever thing. In your headline you state Coventry City owner in court battle with charity.

Your sub heading then says claim and counter-claim which implies that's the order of action respectively. SISU claim, Higgs counter-claim. You then reversed the name sequence further down the article to sit respectively.

Subtle changes that completely change the context of your headline.

Secondly - the real story was that the liquidation process hadn't finished, why wasn't that your headline? Yet your headline implied owners had deliberately not paid ACL.

It's subtle - but seems very deliberate.

olderskyblue - This is 2 I was referring to yesterday.

 

[wingy]

olderskyblue - This is 2 I was referring to yesterday.[/QUOTE

Your reference to the that second point re non payment due to the Liquidation being Incomplete.Does anyone of us know whether It's dependent upon that ?

Is It conditional ?

 

[olderskyblue]

olderskyblue - This is 2 I was referring to yesterday.

Yes, and I read that yesterday, and again now, but cannot see any inaccuracies. In fact, the whole article is very clear and concise, very understandable as to who is suing who, and why.

 

[dongonzalos]

The main reason I just appear to have Higgs/ACL questions is because everything that SISU has done has been scrutinised, analysed and deconstructed. What's Higgs/ACL have been doing has generally gone under the media radar. That's why I have the questions primarily for them.

One thing I do want to know about SISU is why they didn't do proper due diligence and deal with rent/revenue issue when they took over.

The answer seems to be 'yeah we should have done. We fucked that bit up' which is actually what we all think.

I am not too sure they have.

They say plan A is a new stadium. We are 45 million in debt.
The new stadium will at a very conservative estimate is 25 million.

So with plan A we end up owing 70 million plus.

How will their investors ever get that money back?

The only answer so far is promotion.

We currently pay 1.8 million in interest.

Promotion will be unlikely but if we get it will still not lead to the investors getting their money back

No one be it CWR, CET it fans groups have ever had this explained yet we have a stadium group meeting to discuss the new stadium?

So they have definitely not been scrutinised we need answers to how our club will survive 75 million plus in debt.

 

[wingy]

I am not too sure they have.

They say plan A is a new stadium. We are 45 million in debt.
The new stadium will at a very conservative estimate is 25 million.

So with plan A we end up owing 70 million plus.

How will their investors ever get that money back?

The only answer so far is promotion.

We currently pay 1.8 million in interest.

Promotion will be unlikely but if we get it will still not lead to the investors getting their money back

No one be it CWR, CET it fans groups have ever had this explained yet we have a stadium group meeting to discuss the new stadium?

So they have definitely not been scrutinised we need answers to how our club will survive 75 million plus in debt.

Further Administrations??

 

[Ian1779]

Yes, and I read that yesterday, and again now, but cannot see any inaccuracies. In fact, the whole article is very clear and concise, very understandable as to who is suing who, and why.

Yes it is clear once you get half way into the article. But the headline and sub-headline imply a slightly different context. And as I have already tried to explain, a lot of people will go no further than the headline and sub-headline before deciding their opinion. This is my point. You go an have a look on Twitter and see how many people were saying it was disgraceful a hedge fund suing a charity... that tells you what I mean.

 

[duffer]

Yes it is clear once you get half way into the article. But the headline and sub-headline imply a slightly different context. And as I have already tried to explain, a lot of people will go no further than the headline and sub-headline before deciding their opinion. This is my point. You go an have a look on Twitter and see how many people were saying it was disgraceful a hedge fund suing a charity... that tells you what I mean.

Erm, they did sue a charity - that was the point of the counterclaim. They weren't obliged to make a counterclaim, they could just have defended the original claim.

 

[wingy]

Yes it is clear once you get half way into the article. But the headline and sub-headline imply a slightly different context. And as I have already tried to explain, a lot of people will go no further than the headline and sub-headline before deciding their opinion. This is my point. You go an have a look on Twitter and see how many people were saying it was disgraceful a hedge fund suing a charity... that tells you what I mean.

Should we ignore that the Higgs claim could have been dealt with In a normal claims court .It was expanded by the counterclaim to encompass far more ,creating far more expense,widening the case to bring out virtually the entire JR argument .

CT gave It's view of what was learned ,Is It so far away from the Judges?

 

[olderskyblue]

Yes it is clear once you get half way into the article. But the headline and sub-headline imply a slightly different context. And as I have already tried to explain, a lot of people will go no further than the headline and sub-headline before deciding their opinion. This is my point. You go an have a look on Twitter and see how many people were saying it was disgraceful a hedge fund suing a charity... that tells you what I mean.

So, for those of us not interested in twitter, how many people were saying this? can you give me an idea?

 

[Ian1779]

I am not too sure they have.

They say plan A is a new stadium. We are 45 million in debt.
The new stadium will at a very conservative estimate is 25 million.

So with plan A we end up owing 70 million plus.

How will their investors ever get that money back?

The only answer so far is promotion.

We currently pay 1.8 million in interest.

Promotion will be unlikely but if we get it will still not lead to the investors getting their money back

No one be it CWR, CET it fans groups have ever had this explained yet we have a stadium group meeting to discuss the new stadium?

So they have definitely not been scrutinised we need answers to how our club will survive 75 million plus in debt.

I agree with you on this. Perhaps the reason why we can't get an answer on this is because we are talking a lot of future events, which they can almost deflect by saying we will let you know when we have a site confirmed etc - which is total bollocks on their part, and not exactly helping them repair their relationship with their fan base. It is definitely something that needs to be answered and clarified clearly.

In my opinion, the only way for SISU to make a return on their investment is for us to get to the PL. But to do that they are going to have to dig a lot deeper to get us there.

 

[Ian1779]

Erm, they did sue a charity - that was the point of the counterclaim. They weren't obliged to make a counterclaim, they could just have defended the original claim.

Yet the headline suggested that they went and actively pursued Higgs. Which is not true. Would SISU have launched a claim against Higgs in the first instance? Doubt it.

 

[Ian1779]

So, for those of us not interested in twitter, how many people were saying this? can you give me an idea?

I can't give you an exact number, but probably at least 50. Now in the grand scheme of things that's not a lot, but we are talking about active Twitter users that post on CCFC. I have no idea how that transposes on other social media and then more generally.

 

[olderskyblue]

I can't give you an exact number, but probably at least 50. Now in the grand scheme of things that's not a lot, but we are talking about active Twitter users that post on CCFC. I have no idea how that transposes on other social media and then more generally.

How about this one?

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...-chunk-6930683

That epically huge poll of how many.... 397 people?

 

[duffer]

Yet the headline suggested that they went and actively pursued Higgs. Which is not true. Would SISU have launched a claim against Higgs in the first instance? Doubt it.

Yep, I'd agree with you there - I doubt SISU sue Higgs directly if there's no claim first, although given SISU's prediliction for legal threats I wouldn't put anything past them.

As to the article, I must confess I hadn't noticed anything one sided in the CET coverage, but I haven't analysed it in the same way you have.

I suspect a lot of people were irked about the counterclaim regardless of the CET article. I certainly was, fwiw. As stated elsewhere it wasn't necessary and it's not beyond reason to see it as a way of upping the stakes to dissuade the charity from taking the matter further.

 

[Ian1779]

Yep, I'd agree with you there - I doubt SISU sue Higgs directly if there's no claim first, although given SISU's prediliction for legal threats I wouldn't put anything past them.

As to the article, I must confess I hadn't noticed anything one sided in the CET coverage, but I haven't analysed it in the same way you have.

I suspect a lot of people were irked about the counterclaim regardless of the CET article. I certainly was, fwiw. As stated elsewhere it wasn't necessary and it's not beyond reason to see it as a way of upping the stakes to dissuade the charity from taking the matter further.

I thought the counter-claim was ridiculous too, as was the original claim. I have no idea why either party thought it was worth going to court over.

My only thought about SISU's actions was that the counter-claim was a smoke screen.. they just wanted to get some info into the public domain and it was a perfect excuse.

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Michael

I did see your thread and your questions but I am not able to answer them. If I could I would happily do so.

As for your other questions, you have highlighted perfectly my some of my frustrations. I am just a normal fan. I have a season ticket. I don't travel generally to away games as I have a young family and due to my job. I am not affiliated to any organisation, protest group or any other siginificant part of this dispute. I'm not even a member of SBT. But the assumption that I must be some kind of plant, employee or some kind of important person fishing for info, implies that any regular fan is only afforded the luxury of certain information.

Everything I know I have found for myself. I have taken the time to read, investigate and find out as many facts as possible. There is still more I want to know, but simply I was not satisfied with the information presented by just the CET, or other 'impartial' parties involved. Now if I can do it, there are plenty of others that can too. Why are the people involved with fans group or campaign not actively encouraging ALL fans to find out as much as they can...? to make a considered opinion.

Fans on this forum generally are far better informed than the general population of CCFC fans. That general population are too reliant on what CET tells them, and we all know that this does not give a full picture of the dispute.

As for being critical of people like Simon and PWKH, just because they come on here and say 'look i'm so and so - don't you know I'm important in this dispute' does that mean they are beyond criticism? If you put yourself out in the media - expect to be criticised and scrutinised. It's the nature of the beast.
I have been critical of Simon Gilbert... I'm not going to apologise for that. I don't think he gives the fans the true picture of what is going on. Les tried to.. and he's disappeared off the planet.

I want to find out everything I can. If I find out more information I intend on sharing it. It would be brilliant if we could get more people to do the same.

"the assumption that I must be some kind of plant, employee or some kind of important person fishing for info, implies that any regular fan is only afforded the luxury of certain information." I don't think I suggested anything of the sort! I never bought into the whole pro/anti acl/sisu thing and I lost interest in people arguing over it a long time ago. kcic is pro team and pro fan hence coming to our 4 key questions which are about how we get back to the ricoh asap not who is to blame and certainly not prioritising the interests of a hedge fund, charity or council. Nor am I interested in who is the best journo and really don't understand what your stuff about SG being misleading while LR told the truth is about. I also don't understand your comment that you are interested in "Higgs/ACL questions is because everything that SISU has done has been scrutinised, analysed and deconstructed" - we don't even know who the sisu investors are and their financial arrangements are as clear as mud!

 

[torchomatic]

Ha! Yes. "Huge Chunk" was quite amusing. And misleading.

How about this one?

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/fans-poll-shows-huge-chunk-6930683

That epically huge poll of how many.... 397 people?

My personal favourite is the one from the beginning of the season where he publicly humiliates 2 twitter users for saying they would go to Sixfields. Putting their Twitter handles on and everything. You can imagine the dogs abuse they will have got as a result. (sadly I can't find the link)

 

[Ian1779]

Then why ask me who I am? As far as you or anyone needs to know I am a poster on a forum about CCFC. You suggested because I was 'very knowledgeable' I must be someone involved in the dispute.

And let's be honest - The KCIC campaign hasn't always just been pro team has it?

Also when mentioning Simon did I bring Les into discussion - so you have made that connection on your own.

And no we don't know about SISU investors at all or their financial arrangements. But we do know they paid Pressley and the players last week, and the week before, and will do next week.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say....

 

[wingy]

Ha! Yes. "Huge Chunk" was quite amusing. And misleading.

It was about the same response as the Club were able to get from their Database Torch ,not all encompassing but equal to .

 

[skybluetony176]

And no we don't know about SISU investors at all or their financial arrangements. But we do know they paid Pressley and the players last week, and the week before, and will do next week.

Tell me, these unknown investors that "paid" the wages last week. Did they do this as a charitable donation never to be paid back or did they loan the club the money to enable them to pay the wages?

 

[MichaelCCFC]

Then why ask me who I am? As far as you or anyone needs to know I am a poster on a forum about CCFC. You suggested because I was 'very knowledgeable' I must be someone involved in the dispute.

And let's be honest - The KCIC campaign hasn't always just been pro team has it?

Also when mentioning Simon did I bring Les into discussion - so you have made that connection on your own.

And no we don't know about SISU investors at all or their financial arrangements. But we do know they paid Pressley and the players last week, and the week before, and will do next week.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say....

"Also when mentioning Simon did I bring Les into discussion" could have sworn you posted the following a bit earlier! - "I have been critical of Simon Gilbert... I'm not going to apologise for that. I don't think he gives the fans the true picture of what is going on. Les tried to.."

 

[Ian1779]

Tell me, these unknown investors that "paid" the wages last week. Did they do this as a charitable donation never to be paid back or did they loan the club the money to enable them to pay the wages?

According to the SCMP (league 1 version of FFP) any shortfall can be made up by investors but only as a grant... Not a debt for future. So if this is implemented correctly it would be the first I guess.

 

[Ian1779]

"Also when mentioning Simon did I bring Les into discussion" could have sworn you posted the following a bit earlier! - "I have been critical of Simon Gilbert... I'm not going to apologise for that. I don't think he gives the fans the true picture of what is going on. Les tried to.."

The comment was about Simon and if it suggested that I was comparing him to Les it was not intentional. My apologies there as it wasn't clear. I was not trying to compare the two.

 

[wingy]

According to the SCMP (league 1 version of FFP) any shortfall can be made up by investors but only as a grant... Not a debt for future. So if this is implemented correctly it would be the first I guess.

One way or another that equates to player sales .

 

[dongonzalos]

I agree with you on this. Perhaps the reason why we can't get an answer on this is because we are talking a lot of future events, which they can almost deflect by saying we will let you know when we have a site confirmed etc - which is total bollocks on their part, and not exactly helping them repair their relationship with their fan base. It is definitely something that needs to be answered and clarified clearly.

In my opinion, the only way for SISU to make a return on their investment is for us to get to the PL. But to do that they are going to have to dig a lot deeper to get us there.

The problem is we should be able to get an answer and it should be really easy.

They are spending money on this new stadium idea.

You have to have a business case in place for that to happen.

How will the 75 million of investors money eventually be paid back to them should be the easiest question in the would.

As it would have been the lead question for the business case that justifies a new stadium.

So what is the considered outcomes of that business and why are we not getting it rammed down our throats to get us inside with it

 

[Grendel]

The problem is we should be able to get an answer and it should be really easy.

They are spending money on this new stadium idea.

You have to have a business case in place for that to happen.

How will the 75 million of investors money eventually be paid back to them should be the easiest question in the would.

As it would have been the lead question for the business case that justifies a new stadium.

So what is the considered outcomes of that business and why are we not getting it rammed down our throats to get us inside with it

Because they believe if they win the case then they will ha e sufficient damages financially and to the council that they will be back at the Ricoh.

 

[wingy]

Because they believe if they win the case then they will ha e sufficient damages financially and to the council that they will be back at the Ricoh.

You recently suggested you heard some of the stuff that came out In the recent case yet ran a thread that you thought they would lose .Why did you think that?

 

[MichaelCCFC]

The comment was about Simon and if it suggested that I was comparing him to Les it was not intentional. My apologies there as it wasn't clear. I was not trying to compare the two.

"I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say...." I guess when a new poster posts some interesting stuff I hope they're going to cast some new light on things - which for me is how to get us back to the ricoh asap rather than who's to blame. That's why from a kcic perspective we've narrowed it down to 4 questions. I don't know whether to admire people like you and shmee who can keep slugging it out over the pro/anti acl/sisu stuff...or to despair!

 

[dongonzalos]

Because they believe if they win the case then they will ha e sufficient damages financially and to the council that they will be back at the Ricoh.

If that's the business case what is the one where they win but the judge says you are jointly responsible so can't claim against the council. What do they do then.

Also they should still be able to explain the stadium plan otherwise what's the point of having it and why are people attending these stadium groups

 

[Astute]

Then why ask me who I am? As far as you or anyone needs to know I am a poster on a forum about CCFC. You suggested because I was 'very knowledgeable' I must be someone involved in the dispute.

And let's be honest - The KCIC campaign hasn't always just been pro team has it?

Also when mentioning Simon did I bring Les into discussion - so you have made that connection on your own.

And no we don't know about SISU investors at all or their financial arrangements. But we do know they paid Pressley and the players last week, and the week before, and will do next week.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say....

Do you remember the first post you did on here about a week ago? I was one of the first to reply to you. I said that with the way you were questioning CCC and CCC only you sounded just like SISU. And I said that I wouldn't be surprised if you had spoken to Joy just like Les and Nikki had. A couple of days ago you admitted this, although you also said you had spoken to Higgs and all sides on the matter when you hadn't. You say you have known Les for 20 years. You keep misquoting what was said in court. Not far from being spin.

Then you wonder why people are asking you who you are.

We all know that we have more to learn that will come out at the JR. I am not going to attack anyone on hearsay. You are digging against CCC. You might find that you would find much more digging against SISU if it is new items you are looking for. They have constantly lied to us.

So you wonder why CCC have gone quiet before the JR. IMHO I would put it down to the way SISU have done things. We should find out for sure soon. Or are you saying you trust Joy and her puppets? Just as Deering tried to make out that the stopping of payments was nothing to do with Joy. It was done by CCFC. But Joy told us she was going to be hands on. Yet she didn't know about the rent strike?

So what did you talk about with her? I am starting to come to the conclusion that she tells anyone that our club will fold if she don't get the Ricoh when she meets them. And that is why they attack CCC so much. If I am wrong can you tell us what was said? Why do people go from knowing what SISU have done to helping them so much straight away?

 

[dongonzalos]

You recently suggested you heard some of the stuff that came out In the recent case yet ran a thread that you thought they would lose .Why did you think that?

Yes Grendel said he knew about the emails before they came out. It seems he is no friend of the council or the Higgs charity. So he either has a contact connected to SISU or well connected in the press?

 

[Ian1779]

Do you remember the first post you did on here about a week ago? I was one of the first to reply to you. I said that with the way you were questioning CCC and CCC only you sounded just like SISU. And I said that I wouldn't be surprised if you had spoken to Joy just like Les and Nikki had. A couple of days ago you admitted this, although you also said you had spoken to Higgs and all sides on the matter when you hadn't. You say you have known Les for 20 years. You keep misquoting what was said in court. Not far from being spin.

Then you wonder why people are asking you who you are.

We all know that we have more to learn that will come out at the JR. I am not going to attack anyone on hearsay. You are digging against CCC. You might find that you would find much more digging against SISU if it is new items you are looking for. They have constantly lied to us.

So you wonder why CCC have gone quiet before the JR. IMHO I would put it down to the way SISU have done things. We should find out for sure soon. Or are you saying you trust Joy and her puppets? Just as Deering tried to make out that the stopping of payments was nothing to do with Joy. It was done by CCFC. But Joy told us she was going to be hands on. Yet she didn't know about the rent strike?

So what did you talk about with her? I am starting to come to the conclusion that she tells anyone that our club will fold if she don't get the Ricoh when she meets them. And that is why they attack CCC so much. If I am wrong can you tell us what was said? Why do people go from knowing what SISU have done to helping them so much straight away?

You have clearly confused me with someone else. I first posted here a couple of days ago (well since over a year ago) and began this thread. I think you are referring to someone else?

 

[Nick]

Got to love all of this witchhunt trying to out people

Anything that diverts attention though?

 

[wingy]

You have clearly confused me with someone else. I first posted here a couple of days ago (well since over a year ago) and began this thread. I think you are referring to someone else?

Astute appears to be referring to Rob s.